The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-11-12

formerly USED IN us ueIenS0. but Dr.
Shedd, apparently unmindful of the
changes in popular thought affecting
this doctrine, and oblivious to the fact
that the doctrine is dying belief, adj
vanced to its defense with the venera-
BILE arguments of former generations,
as if it were possible to again interest
the world in the old doctrine, overlook
ing the fact that
Zone spell upon the minds of men
Breaks, never to unite again."
The editor of the Interior, CDR. W. G.
Gray, recently out in the woods on a
vacation, allowed his mind to wander
away from the gentle influences of ma
ture, and to dwell for season on this
medieval article of DIR. Shedd. He
writes in one of his Campfire Mus
ings:"
This reminds me of DIR. Shedd's article
in the North American ReUie1c, a year or
two ago, on the sweet reasonableness OF
eternal punishment When / had read
into it few pages was persuaded that
it was written by Ingersoll, and turned to
the end to find not "Bob" but DIR.
Shedd's name il clear type. 1t seemed
to me to be the most horrible caricature
of the doctrine [ had ever seen, and that
coming from such man there was great
mischief in it; and said to two or three
eminent ministers that I thought on be-
half of Presbyterianism the article ought
to be disavowed as not correctly repre-
senting the truth as we hold it. =" 1t can
not be done without doing more harm
than good" was the opinion given to me
and that was doubtless true view.
Now, what was the mischief In DIR. Shedds
article? The mischief was that DR.. Shedd
undertook to tell more about the particu-
lars of eschatology than any one save
God knows. He undertook to give Gods
reasons and motives in specific detail.
The result was what DR.. Shedd would
think and do if he were God. His def
nitions of civil law would have been over
ruled by any lawyer. 1t seemed to me
at the time that the general Reputation
OF his logic would go further and lead to
reputation, in many minds, of the truth
itself A truth badly argued for, is
truth thus most dangerously assailed.
We are not so much interested at
present in DR.. Gray's attempt to show
wherein the article of DR.. Shedd might
be improved, as to note the scornful
way in which it is treated by the In
terror. Some very severe things were
said about this article in Universalist
and Unitarian journals at the time of
its appearances; but we cannot recall
any quite so severe as this paragraph.
To couple DR.. Shedd's name with In
gersoll's in this connection, and to de-
clare the article "a horrible caricature
of the doctrine" and to indulge in the
sly thrust about the "sweet reasonable
ness of eternal punishment, is alto
gether a combination such as we did
not expect to find in a Presbyterian
journal. The amiability of our Pres
byterian friends must have been trifle
disturbed by these wounds in the
house of friend. We hope their phil
osophy was found adequate to the oc-
casion. 1t must have been sufficient
for we have noticed no particular out
breaks.
But word or two in behalf of DIR.
Shedd is needed with reference to the
Interiors criticism
1. DIR. Shedd's article cannot be Justly
entitled ''caricature" of the doctrine
in question. 1t was true to the life in
its Calvinistic representations. No man
since Jonathan Edwards has more
clearly set forth the doctrine, in SUBJ
stance and for substance, more exactly
than DR.. Shedd. We invite Calvinistic
Presbyterians to survey the grim feat
ures of the Moloch of theology in his
pages. 1t was evidently this vivid
portraiture of the doctrine that disturb
ed our amiable friend of the Interior.
2. The mischief" which DR.. Gray
apprehended as coming to the church
from DR.. Shedd's article, and from the
fear of which he refrained from put
ting the knife into it at first, is not, we
are convinced, due to the statement of
the doctrine, or the arguments by which
it was defended, so much as the doctrine
itself. If eternal punishment is true, no
intelligent Christian should object to
the baldest and boldest proclamation
thereof. The faith of the Presbyte-
rian church on this subject may be
esteemed as somewhat shaky when
mischief" can be apprehended from
DR.. Shedd's form of stating the argu-
ment for the doctrine. 1t is not long
ago that Presbyterians welcomed any
defense of the doctrine esteemed that
man a faithful Waterman who pro-
claimed it on the towers of Zion, and
were not so very particular about the
form of the proclamation. 1t seems
that all this is now changed. 1t must
be confessed that Presbyterianism is
growing particular in these last days.
8. The Interior, we are again con-
WINGED, does injustice to DIR. Shedd in
the representation that the latter would
''think and do' exactly what he repre-
sents God as doing, were he (Dr. Shedd)
on the throne of the universe with the
destiny of his creatures in his hands.
The presumption is in the contrary